Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[McBell]

this is my opinion , the more people like you accuse our armed forces of killing civilians , the more **** they get when they come home. i dont need to tell it to he next veteran i meet ,i am a veteran 15 years service including reserve, 2nd Battalion parachute regiment,

You are a veteran of the Iraq war?

 

[kai]

So sorry.
I was unawares that "veteran" meant only those in the Iraq war.
Interesting that you have to now add these conditional modifiers to your statement.




So, you gonna answer the question:

So, would you care to explain what you meant by:

yeah tell that to the next veteran you meet​

Or are you going to continue backpedaling?

if i am talking about Iraq i am talking about Iraq , here your a veteran of your campaign, you might call it differant,
i never back pedal, my post before this explains exactly what i meant. keep telling everyone the troops kill civilians and they will start to beleive all troops kill civilians. then when you get home your treated like ****

 

[McBell]

if i am talking about Iraq i am talking about Iraq , here your a veteran of your campaign, you might call it differant,
i never back pedal, my post before this explains exactly what i meant

You might want to slow down.
Going backwards at the pace you are going cannot possibly be safe...

 

[kai]

You are a veteran of the Iraq war?

i have toured in Iraq, afghanistan the Balkans,and Northern Ireland spent some time in advisory roles and now retired

 

[McBell]

i have toured in Iraq, afghanistan the Balkans,and Northern Ireland spent some time in advisory roles and now retired

So how exactly does this explain your conditional modifiers?

 

[kai]

So how exactly does this explain your conditional modifiers?

what ? if someone says their a veteran you ask what posting, in a conversation about Iraq in mentioning a veteran i am meaning in Iraq.

if the conversation was about Vietnam and i mention a vet i mean a Vietnam vet.



i think thats what you asking me .
i hope thats cleared that up.
i don't know you may term veterans as covering all theaters, here its a Falklands veteran, or a Balkans veteran. etc etc were getting more etcs all the time my son is presently posted to Kossavo

 

[McBell]

Makes sense.
Especially given that the two examples presented BEFORE your conditional modifiers, pretty much made you look... not so good.

I will have to find some IRAQ veterans and flat out ask them.

 

[kai]

Makes sense.
Especially given that the two examples presented BEFORE your conditional modifiers, pretty much made you look... not so good. yours was kind of off the OP and the one with tony Benn was claptrap, and your use of the words "conditional modifiers" still kind of baffles me , if my explanation that saying we are killing as many Iraqi civilians as we can to succeed in our political purpose is wrong and saying i was talking about Iraq isn't good enough for you then tough.

I will have to find some IRAQ veterans and flat out ask them.

you are going to actually ask them if they kill as many civilians as they can , that should go down well.

 

[Alceste]

you are going to actually ask them if they kill as many civilians as they can , that should go down well.

I believe the question was whether they kill as many civilians as it takes to achieve their leaders' political goals. You think they are going to disagree with that?

With regards to Tony Benn's left leanings, that's hardly relevant to his opinion as a war vet on the topic of war. But hey, I'll openly admit I am southwest of Ghandi on the "political compass". The left has given us health care, education, sanitation, safe working conditions, minimum wages and legislated holiday time. What can I thank the political right for? Making rich people richer?

 

[Yerda]

What can I thank the political right for? Making rich people richer?

Fighting the Leninist Left for us?

 

[kai]

I believe the question was whether they kill as many civilians as it takes to achieve their leaders' political goals. You think they are going to disagree with that?
your dam right i do , let me say this one last time , UK armed forces in Iraq do not target non combatants.
With regards to Tony Benn's left leanings, that's hardly relevant to his opinion as a war vet on the topic of war. But hey, I'll openly admit I am southwest of Ghandi on the "political compass". The left has given us health care, education, sanitation, safe working conditions, minimum wages and legislated holiday time. What can I thank the political right for? Making rich people richer?

I disagree with Benn's statement that there is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber, and his being in WW2 doesn't alter that .

 

[Yerda]

Are UK armed forces just incompetent, Kai?

 

[kai]

Are UK armed forces just incompetent, Kai?

i would class them as among the most competant in the world, do you think they are incompetant?

 

[Yerda]

i would class them as among the most competant in the world, do you think they are incompetant?

I'm not sure. I've heard that British forces have been more diplomatic in peace keeping than the American forces. Do you know if that's true?

I asked if the were incompetent because while they don't target civilians they appear to kill them regularly.

 

[kai]

I'm not sure. I've heard that British forces have been more diplomatic in peace keeping than the American forces. Do you know if that's true?

its true we have a different approach than US forces, But saying that the area of operations is vastly different.

I asked if the were incompetent because while they don't target civilians they appear to kill them regularly.

do wish me to comment on a particular case? or are you just "having a pop" as we say.

 

[Yerda]

do wish me to comment on a particular case?

Yes. Have civilian casualties been lower in clashes involving British forces than those of other countries?

 

[kai]

Yes. Have civilian casualties been lower in clashes involving British forces than those of other countries?

i would say that US forces have had consideraby more clashes with insurgents than we have.the US troops are in the thick of it almost constantly ,so all casualties in our sector are generally lower. its a difficult job in difficult circumstances, our aim is to train Iraqi security forces to handle security issues and we are achieving that aim. once completed we go.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree with Benn's statement that there is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber, and his being in WW2 doesn't alter that .

What is the difference? Let's take the example of the World Trade Center, which contained government and intelligence offices and was a major feature of the US financial infrastructure, and the Pentagon, with obvious value as a military target. About 2500 or so people's worth of collateral damage, and compare it to the bombing of Baghdad and the chemical immolation of the civilians of Fallujah, plus any subsequent campaigns that have resulted in about 200,000 people's worth of collateral damage.

To you, what is the moral difference between these attacks, apart from the scale of the crime?

 

[kai]

What is the difference? Let's take the example of the World Trade Center, which contained government and intelligence offices and was a major feature of the US financial infrastructure, and the Pentagon, with obvious value as a military target. About 2500 or so people's worth of collateral damage, and compare it to the bombing of Baghdad and the chemical immolation of the civilians of Fallujah, plus any subsequent campaigns that have resulted in about 200,000 people's worth of collateral damage.

To you, what is the moral difference between these attacks, apart from the scale of the crime?

i believe the twin towers were not targeted for any other reason than being a very large symbol , they were targeted by criminals with the intention of murder, answer me this if they failed do you agree they should have been arrested for hijack? if they had killed a passenger do you think they should have been apprehended and charged with murder?

the pentagon could be considered a military target if it was targeted by the armed forces of somebody? rather than a suicide murderer egged on by a phenomenally rich bandit for his own ends. again if they had failed should they have answered to the law?

the battles for fallujah were long and fierce, authorized by the Iraqi government and carried out with the assistance of the Iraqi forces.
civilian deaths are of course regrettable but insurgents tend to operate from behind and among civilians, they very rarely engage head on in their quests for martyrdom. We operate as part of a coalition called the Multi National force-Iraq(MNF-Iraq) alongside troops from 25 other nations. The coalition remains at the formal request of the Iraqi Government, under a mandate from the United Nations, as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790.

there is my basis for the moral difference.

you don't really come across as a conscientious objector to war in general but a critic of coalition forces in general, in all the posts we have argued over never once have you mentioned the murders and bombings of civilians deliberately targeted by insurgents. we are all aware of war being ugly but there are two sides in this war with as usual civilians stuck in the middle.

 

[Valjean]

If a policeman sees a felon fleeing a serious crime, he is legally allowed to use a gun to stop the perpetrator. However, if the criminal is running through a crowd, the lawman may not shoot, because it is not legal to endanger civilians in pursuit of a criminal.
Likewise, if a certain apartment in a block of flats is known to be a manufacturing and distribution site for illegal drugs, it is not considered acceptable to bomb it, knowing that adjacent flats, if not the whole building, wil be destroyed.

Why the double standard? Why is it OK to do exactly these things in Baghdad but not in New York?

I think the 9/11 attack on the WTC should have been handled the same way the previous WTC attack was handled.
The fact is, the 9/11 attack was merely a convenient excuse for implementing a larger, imperialistic agenda.

As far as the British vs the American approach to both 'peacekeeping' and law enforcement, I would say the current American strategy is one of hyper-aggressiveness, AKA: Shock and Awe.
This is not just a military strategem. It permeates the whole society. One only has to watch a few episodes of American reality cop shows like "Cops" to see that hyperaggressive overkill is the order of the day.
Compare Cops to arrest scenes in old movies and the new approach is clear.